Arctic Law: The Challenges of Governance in the Changing Arctic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This panel was convened at 10:45 am, Friday, April 5, by its moderator, Austen Parrish of Southwestern Law School, who introduced the panelists: Betsy Baker of Vermont Law School; Suzanne Lalonde of the University of Montreal; Peter Oppenheimer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Don Rothwell of the Australian National University. * * Professor Lalonde and Mr. Oppenheimer did not contribute remarks to the Proceedings. Introductory Remarks by Austen Parrish ([dagger]) Good morning and welcome to our panel discussion on Arctic Law. Before we begin, a thank you to the Program Committee, the conference organizers, and the International Environmental Law and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Interest Groups for hosting this panel. For an Annual Meeting focused on International Law in a Multipolar World, it seems particularly apropos to have a panel dedicated to one of the polar regions. The panel's topic is an important one. Tremendous changes are occurring in the far North that implicate key questions for international law and international environmental governance. The Arctic is now the center of a number of international legal and political disputes: energy security, natural resources, and environmental degradation; climate change and its impact on indigenous populations; the remaking of global trade routes; and the delineation of the continental shelf. Degradation of the Arctic environment is particularly a concern as sea ice rapidly diminishes. The concerns have become more pronounced as shipping, tourism, and oil, gas, and mineral extraction activities increase, and as the effects of climate change, including ocean acidification, become better understood. The quickly receding polar ice has also spurred the eight Arctic circumpolar nations and other groups to more closely examine existing governance structures. While cooperation among nations and other groups interested in the Arctic has been considerable, a question remains whether the emerging structure of international environmental governance is capable of responding well to the challenges of the region. Are there gaps in the current Arctic environmental governance regimes? And, if so, how best are those gaps filled? What steps have been taken already? We are extremely fortunate to have a panel of leading experts who bring diverse perspectives--both from the government and the academy, and from Australia, Canada, and the United States--to tackle these questions. Panelists will describe the role of the Arctic Council and its future work and priorities, as well as the work of other key organizations and actors that are struggling to address issues of conservation, management, and governance of Arctic resources. The panel also intends to explore the inter-treaty linkages in the Arctic that form a foundation for environmental governance, and will touch upon the unique environmental and human rights issues facing the indigenous populations. As you will see, the panelists have differing perspectives on how various international legal mechanisms have helped (or perhaps hindered) the evolution of Arctic environmental governance. We will begin with each speaker making a brief statement. After those statements, the panelists will discuss and debate key questions related to Arctic environmental governance, and finally we will open the discussion to include the audience. We are fortunate that many in our audience bring considerable expertise in Arctic matters and international law. I'm pleased to see in the audience's first row Hans Corell, former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations; Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser to the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Ashley Roach, formerly of the Office of Legal Advisor of the U.S. Department of State; and Timo Koivurova, Director of the Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre/ University of Lapland, among many others. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».